Franklin, Chaitkin, Larouche, Oh My!

[Dreams End]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Looks like LL is one of the topics you have stacks on to present.<br><br>Curious why such a focus on LL?<br>Guess he does have a long history and frikkin' huge parapolitical footprint.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>This is all in 30 minutes of googling, Hugh. that's the point. It's easy to find this stuff. <br><br>I could understand your defense, or perceived defense of LL last time...but I fail to understand it this time.<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>DE, you are the only one I've ever read that considers Larouche to be the Devil His Own Self (for whatever faults)and suggests that Chaitkin, Tarpley, and EIR discredit anything they touch.<br><br>No, wait. Chip Berlet does, too.<br>And the Mockingbird media.<br>Now I am confused.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Yep, I'd say so. Guess I must be part of the CIA attempt to discredit Larouche. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 3/26/06 1:55 pm<br></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

DE, I admit I was posting late and tired last night.<br>Sorry if this sounds like squinty-eyed interrogation.<br><br>Hell, I'm not defending LL. No way. <br>I'm asking how much to tar Chaitkin and Tarpley with the LL brush.<br><br>So I'm not trying sling arrows of indictment, just get guidance because I'm work-drained numb and cutting corners by asking for help in case it saves me time and energy which admittedly I have to spend to do the topic justice.<br><br>Hey, I never cheated in school by asking for answers and I guess I can't take the easy way out at RI, either.<br><br>Again, thanks for all the info to follow up. But dang you fer giving me yet more homework. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/26/06 2:11 pm<br></i>

[chiggerbit]

OK, who spread the thread? <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I'm asking how much to tar Chaitkin and Tarpley with the LL brush.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Chaitkin is still a larouchian and Tarpley is a former Larouchian who still links to stuff he wrote WHILE a larouchian and is pushing the same line. He wrote the Bush bio with Chaitkin. I just don't know, I guess, what the communication problem is here.<br><br>I know they do "good" research...Larouche had and probably still had the biggest private intel network in the world. They made money selling this "intel" to governments and law enforcement...<br><br>But you know...when a glass of champagne is only 10% horse piss...you still gonna drink it? <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

I have no idea what to make of this hall of mirrors, but DE's thesis in the Hugh block quote above makes pretty good sense. <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

OK, got a meal in me and I can almost think straight.<br><br>I agree, Newkid. DE's hypothesis is worth consideration and that is why I dragged it over while my brain lost sugar fuel and I lost both balance and clarity in my writing.<br><br>DE, regarding the piss in the champagne-<br><br>The piss has been applied to almost everything since the gubbmint has huge resources to cover its tracks and divert. They saw the internet coming and pre-loaded it with disinfo. <br><br>I keep finding that the "piss" is frequently a good marker for things the Powers That Be don't want you to go near.<br>As in, take what Rumsfeld says and mulitply times negative one and you get the truth. His latest speech at the Council on Foreign Relations was so bad even he sounded troubled by it. grrr..<br><br>So I'm not willing to shun the information presented by everyone who has either dipped himself in the waste water effluvia or had a cup of it thrown at him. If the anti-fascist movement shunned everyone with 'bad breath' we'd have few friends left.<br><br>Back to my question: Is 'purity' in the pursuit of answers self-defeating if we don't look at how an individual's work stands alone and not just by association? <br><br>I recognize the terrible scam of having Alex Jones carry the 9/11 truth flag on CNN Entertainment and cite as credible Mr. "No planes" Morgan Reynolds. That's a problem.<br><br>So trying to defend Chaitkin and Tarpley (not Larouche) is my attempt at not totally succumbing to divide-and-conquer tactics even as I agree with you more than I did last fall that not spreading the discrediting virus is important.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>I haven't read all your material on Tarpley yet and I apologize if you've addressed this. My head still hurts from several days of low food intake.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> But I saw the photo of Tarpley next to the Russian general at the European anti-US conference and wonder whether Tarpley was played by seating him there.<br><br>Of course, the French-Russian and European resistance to the neocons is waving the 9/11 flag vigorously and using the internet to reach into the US to people like us. This is probably why Tarpley and Ray McGovern were at the conference, too.<br><br>The issue of CIA people 'helping us' against the neocons is a similiar paradox. There are probably genuinely outraged CIA and some making the American public friendly to CIA with Valerie Plame being their 'white girl story.' Who is who?<br>I respect John Stockwell but am leary of, say, Larry Johnson who was the CIA's Honduran analyst under Reagan (!) but is weighing in on the Plame 'outing.'<br><br>Back to Tarpley-<br>Do you really think Tarpley is a 'fake anti-fascist' for distributing this graphic? How important is this chart? Do others have it to avoid the LL 'taint?' I don't think so.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.waronfreedom.org/pix/model.jpg">www.waronfreedom.org/pix/model.jpg</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>(Sorry, the best one is huge and spreads the page so I won't paste it in. But look for yourself at the one below.)<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.waronfreedom.org/pix/chart.jpg">www.waronfreedom.org/pix/chart.jpg</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>on edit: Dang. The first jpg also spreads the page so I made them links only.<br><br><br> <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/26/06 4:54 pm<br></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Hi hugh. I personally haven't made up my mind about planes or no planes. However, one of the many things that bother me about the planes hitting the towers is this: how did the lightweight aluminum (which is what all plane wings are made of) slice through the thick steel load bearing columns in the outer wall of the WTC thus creating neat planewing shaped holes in both towers? Can aluminum slice steel? Try it in your kitchen. Let me know what you find out. Unless of course, you just want exercise yourself calling real researchers like Morgan Reynolds and Alex Jones names.... <p></p><i></i>

[slimmouse]

<br><br> any hole marks from the titanium engines ? <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Oh, didn't know Tarpley had a CHART. I stand corrected. <br><br>I can't make it any clearer, Hugh. <br><br>I'm done with this...so let readers decide. If anyone wants to go back to the original topic, that's cool too.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Of course the engine would make a mark and probably a large hole, which it does show, but the "holes" span the entire length of the wings and are shaped at those places like wings. I can't send pictures on this very old machine, otherwise I would post the hole pictures of the towers. <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

DE wrote-<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> Oh, didn't know Tarpley had a CHART. I stand corrected. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>lol. Point taken. Touche.<br><br>Hey, atleast he's not pushing a 'no planes on 9/11' theory. sigh. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

How did the no plane stuff end up on this thread? <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

DBD is convinced Morgan Reynolds should be listened to.<br><br>And you're worried about Tarpley. lol. <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Hugh and Dreams End--I guess you two aren't answering my question concerning wingholes, aluminum and its steel cutting properties. Is this because you HAVE no answer? How indeed, did those wing shaped holes come to be? Or are details like that beneath such advanced intellects as yourselves obviously are. <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

I'm as suspicious of Morgan Reynolds as the next guy, but I think we sometimes overlook the fact that alternative researchers will frequently make perfectly innocent mistakes. In fact, if they didn't, I would think that would be cause for some alarm. <p></p><i></i>