6 thoughts on “Headdesk Moment:”

  1. Hmm, all she said is that are some “unexplained inconsistencies”, and I’m afraid I have to agree with her on that statement.
    Basically she was being polite, not endorsing Richard Gage, but also not accepting the official explanations, which do have numerous holes and “unexplained inconsistencies”.
    No thinking person would accept the official reports at face value, especially as even the authors of those reports have said that information was withheld from them at the time they made the report that would have substantially changed the reports they wrote.

  2. Frankie: nah, I don’t buy it. Although she hasn’t publicly endorsed him, Fitzsimons has loaned her name to Gage, and (more tellingly) has signed a petition that is tied up with the “9/11 Truth Movement”, and was impressed by Truther book “Crossing the Rubicon” if this quote can be believed (http://www.nz911truth.org/?q=node/).
    (About “Crossing The Rubicon”: http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Rubicon-Decline-American-Empire/dp/0865715408)
    To me, that communicates something more than her cautious words. People can entertain doubts and questions about aspects of the 9/11 events, sure, but she has placed herself in alignment with the specific approach of that “Movement”. The Movement doesn’t pass the sniff test for me, because it has as its bedrock (in all its permutations) a massive and successful conspiracy of silence and deception.
    My head is still contacting the desk.

  3. You can add a facepalm from me to the headdesk. The truther movement and those who promulgate it make me genuinely angry. Noted the other day a certain Radio Active breakfast DJ still trying to pass off ‘Loose Change’ as a documentary when promoting Gage’s talk.
    The truthers make me angry because they make observations and assumptions based on ignorance, and then pass it off to people who don’t know any better as carefully researched and peer-reviewed science, which it isn’t (speaking as a science professional). It’s ignorance and assumption presented as fact.
    Let me make this clear. I’m not annoyed at their conclusions, rather the crap investigative method they use to reach them. I’ll preach for truthers tomorrow if they can present a properly researched and unambiguous argument. Fact is NOTHING so far presented by the truth movement meets this criteria for me, so I don’t give them any credence.

  4. Sometimes I want to re-join The Greens so I can cancel my membership in concerned frustration. Again.

  6. I agree that the idea that what Fitzsimons is displaying might remotely resemble reasonable skepticism is decidedly far-fetched. Which is very sad.
    I’ve already crashed a couple of desks this week though so I’ll just resort to cursing loudly.

Comments are closed.