Obama Fanatics Slam Author For Questioning 9/11

[Eyeball Chambers]

"An army of frenzied Barack Obama acolytes have been busy attempting to smear writer Jerome Corsi, author of Obama Nation, by citing his skepticism towards the official 9/11 story, seemingly ignorant of the fact that such doubts are shared by the majority of Americans."

"The Times cites Corsi’s appearance “On Alex Jones’s radio show, a forum for those who take a deeply skeptical view of government claims about the attacks” and says that the video is “making the rounds, especially among Obama supporters”."

http://www.infowars.com/?p=3973

[240 is Back]

This should be good.

Every time we hear someone on getbig tell us Obama sucks because "this guys' book says so"...

We also have to remember he's a "911 CT nut".

So is he credible, or not?*


*Note, one cannot be credible on one issue and not on another.  You're either credible, or you are not.  Does this man have credibility?

[George Whorewell]

There is a fine line to walk here 240. All I care about ( and what anyone else for that matter should care about) is if the facts in his book about Obama are factually accurate. If they are, I dont give a fuck what he believes. He isn't running for public office, he isn't a policy maker and he isnt a politician of any shade. His personal political views/ ideas are irrelevant to me no matter how insane. Creditbility based on personal behavior/ opinion/ belief and action are only important for politicians and other decision makers.

What I find hysterical about the Obama camps criticism of this guy is that their whining is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black [ ad homniem attack anyone]. The 911 conspiracy nuts are a creation of the far left ( Obama's staunchest supporters). Calling his creditibility into question calls Obama's entire consituency into question. If I were them I would keep quiet and focus on the issues the book touches on, mainly Obama's corrupt and dirty dealings while an elected official in Chicago.

[240 is Back]

The 911 conspiracy nuts are a creation of the far left ( Obama's staunchest supporters).

So this book's author is of the far left?  Or, um, he just believes the far left?

Are we to believe you'll now be quoting far-left libby piece o shite authors, just as long as you agree with them?

[240 is Back]

The 911 conspiracy nuts are a creation of the far left

Are you familiar with the stunning article written by Michelle Malkin in 2002?

She wrote a big piece criticizing the 911 story.  Pointed out all sorts of holes in the story.  Ran it in an israeli newspaper.   That's right, she went overseas and published a piece condemining bush's story on 911.

So, um, left-wing folks like her wrote the 911 conspiracy then?

[George Whorewell]

240, are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me Michelle Malkin thinks 911 was an inside job? If you are, please post proof. Thank you. Also, if what you say is accurate, why would Malkin go to Israel ( Americas biggest ally in the reigon and a huge friend of the Bush admin) to print an article insinuating 911 was an inside job? That flies in the face of common sense to a degree that I cant even fathom.


Moving along, I dont know what this guys political affliliation is, nor do I care. If he was a far left lunatic, I highly doubt he'd come out with a book criticizing Barry Obama. What I can tell you for sure though, is that I will quote anyone who supports my opinion regardless of their background because it makes my opinion stronger. If I only quoted or reffered to those who shared the same political affliliation as me, I would be hard pressed to convert anyone to my POV wouldnt I?


The loose change, 911 was an inside job, Michael Moore kool aid drinking retards are of the far far left variety and originated there. No sane, self respecting conservative would ever believe such drivel and the myths of the conspiracy have been debunked numerous times. HOWEVER, WE ARE DIGRESSING. The relevant issue is the book and if the book is factually verifiable. Plain and simple, case closed. If it is, then this story has no legs in my opinion, and the Obama camp does more harm than good attacking the author based on his political opinions (however wrong they might be).

[youandme]

She wrote a big piece criticizing the 911 story.  Pointed out all sorts of holes in the story.  Ran it in an israeli newspaper.   That's right, she went overseas and published a piece condemining bush's story on 911.

Perhaps with just as with any investigation, it contains "holes", just as Obama's past contains gaps.

It should be all the more alarming that a 9/11 CTer is writing a book condemning the gaps in Obama's background, a book that directly deals with 9/11 in many aspects of his preacher's words that 9/11 was a message, and that "the chickens have come home to roost"

Perhaps, this author, who has a well written book with excellent document sources, is exposing the things we need to know.

One thing is certain right now, and that is Obama is not doing a good job with his rebuttal to the book, he has only defended that the book was wrong in the dates of his marriage, not very convincing.

[240 is Back]

240, are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me Michelle Malkin thinks 911 was an inside job?

Enjoy:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030802.asp

[George Whorewell]

lol ok I read the article and there is zero insinuation 911 was an inside job. All she does is question whether the flight that crashed in Penn. was shot down. Thats it, thats all. That isn't a wild accusation by any stretch of the imagination and many people feel that way ( and agree that if that is what happened, it had to be done to avoid killing more innocent people/ prevent the terrosits from using the plane as a weapon like they did with the WTC) that do not believe 911 was an inside job.

Is that all you have?

[240 is Back]

lol ok I read the article and there is zero insinuation 911 was an inside job. All she does is question whether the flight that crashed in Penn. was shot down. Thats it, thats all. That isn't a wild accusation by any stretch of the imagination and many people feel that way ( and agree that if that is what happened, it had to be done to avoid killing more innocent people/ prevent the terrosits from using the plane as a weapon like they did with the WTC) that do not believe 911 was an inside job.

Is that all you have?

She disbelieved the official story.  She insinuated Bush and investigators lied to the American people about 911.  Those loose change twerps were initially trying to debunk her anti-american garbage when they discoverd, woah, she was right about some things.

If one of the planes was shot down, that means the american govt lied to us about their killing americans on our own soil.  That's serious, dude.  That might mean beans n franks to you, but for the sake of history and future shootdowns, it'd be pretty nice to come clean about that, no?


Anyway, your obama author is a 911 kook.   Go ahead and call him credible all you'd like

[George Whorewell]

Ok, but can we agree that this is all irrelevant. If the authors book is accurate are you going to deny its relevance based on what he thinks of 911?

I don't think its all franks and beans or whatever it was you said ( im too lazy to scroll down), but there is a huge difference between lying about something like that and being part of the actual 911 conspiracy to kill Americans and destroy the WTC, crash a plane into the pentagon and be in bed with Obama Bin Laden. I mean Osama. Sorry, couldnt resist.

[youandme]

240 so your going to dismiss his evidence, secondary and primary sources, newspaper articles by other journalists as a conspiracy theory? Instead of a mountain of evidence by others, that he simply fashioned into a book.

 

[240 is Back]

Oh, i think he might be very correct in many things he says about Obama. 

However, I've spent 2 years on this board hearing people being discredited as loons, and their entire body of work being discredited because of heir believe that the official 911 story stinks of shit.

So now we have a chance for HH6, BB, and others to step up and tell us if this man is credible, even though he believes Bush let 911 happen.  If 911 truthers have credibility when they diss Obama, they need to have some credibility when they say other things

[youandme]

Oh, i think he might be very correct in many things he says about Obama. 

However, I've spent 2 years on this board hearing people being discredited as loons, and their entire body of work being discredited because of heir believe that the official 911 story stinks of shit.

So now we have a chance for HH6, BB, and others to step up and tell us if this man is credible, even though he believes Bush let 911 happen.  If 911 truthers have credibility when they diss Obama, they need to have some credibility when they say other things

Read my post again, it's not about him as a person being credible. It's about the sources and information he put together, are they credible?

It's the same with doctors, and scientists that find cures for diseases and are pedophiles, and or some type of sickos they are not honest, credible people but their research is, their finding are. So you can attack a person for their faults, but not for their findings.