Jerome Corsi, 9/11 Denier
Lee on Aug 15 2008 at 12:14 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics
Anyone out there who is tempted to buy Jerome Corsi’s vituperative new book trashing Barack Obama (which conservatives are unfortunately buying in droves), may want to consider what they’d be supporting if they did.
Careful observers will have long noticed that Corsi’s views tend to be more than a little paranoid and frequently even delusional (such as his belief that Bill Clinton is a communist). His rhetoric also is often peppered with far-rightwing conspiracy theory jargon and acronyms (NAU, NWO, etc). But now audio is circulating on the web of Corsi on the Alex Jones show of all places, stating his belief that explosives destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11. With that, Jerome Corsi has nothing more to say that I’d ever care to listen to.
Sphere: Related Content
Any idiot can figure out that explosives where used to destory the World Trade Center, just google “WTC 7″:
Stop posting lies about 9/11!
I removed your hyperlink Borfors, as our spam interceptor wasn’t allowing it for some reason.
ah bofors. shouldn’t you be on jref trying to convince everyone that wtc1 should have bent over 45 degrees to allow the top part to fall off and then bounce back into place like a jack-in-the-box? or that the military is brainwashed?
I would love to believe the “official” conspiracy theory about 9/11 but I cannot rid my intellect of the 100 extra IQ points I have that get in the way.
I have no investment in any particular point of view as long as it doesn’t insult my intelligence. Get yourself an open mind and check-out http://www.AE911truth.org. These are hundreds of architects and engineers who are RISKING their reputations to help find the truth.
They make much more sense than the flawed 9/11 Commission report does! BTW the offical story is a conspiracy theory folks; you see when more than one person does something it is a conspiracy by definition.
My logic Professor in college taught me something that has served me well over the years: when you use an ad hominem attack it means that you cannot win a debate on the merits of your argument………..
AE911 is a charade. None of these “hundreds of architects and engineers” as you call them have written any white papers or scholarly journals for peer review. The site presents nothing in the way of a unique argument, but just parrots long disproved talking points. Furthermore it’s full of electrical engineers and other professions that have no professional insight into the issue.
Perhaps most laughable is the obvious contradictions presented on the front page. It presents 2 different set of signs of “classic demolition” (to say nothing of none of the members having any expertise in demolitions) and it claims symmetrical “collapse” as a “classic characteristic” in building 7 (which it wasn’t) while also claiming “Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet” is also a classic sign (and the amount of explosives necessary to launch the steel so far is in the range of thousands of tons).
Chris, if you keep at this you’re going to talk them into giving up and going back to JFK conspiracies. You’re young enough to have missed most of that, but we had to put up with 38 years of boring crackpotism about it. The whole 9/11 denial thing may be even loonier, but at least it’s at least a change of subject. And changes of subject don’t come easily to these guys once they get started.