[kj] interview

[pr 001]

>From: "fluw" <fluwdot@earthlink.net>
>
>i had two blood relatives within a ball toss of both the pentagon and the 
>wtc. a brother and his wife in nyc. and an uncle in d.c. who works in the 
>pentagon. was it your intention to imply that, it is offensive for jaz to 
>make such a mockery of such serious questions? then i agree with you.

well good for you. they weren't injured then? my intention was to say that 
it was offensive of jaz to _state_ (not suggest) that the attack was staged. 
not really to make a mockery of it, no, but to just abuse the truth in such 
a self-serving way. the fact is he has no idea whether or not it was staged. 
but the cospiracty theory suits him so he shouts it out as gospel truth with 
glee but not a concern for how this may upset people who lost loved ones.

>obviously jaz sees the falseness of what conventional belief on this topic 
>ignores with bliss. unfortunately jaz seemed motivated in the interview to 
>rush the issue into the limelight but made clumsy references that are far 
>from tactical devices for intrigue into a serious issue.
>was he using killing joke as a vehicle for this topic for personal 
>entertainment spectacle, or for the sake of notorious publicity, or truth 
>seeking, or all three.

surely a truth seeker would be more open-minded? i consider myself a truth 
seeker and i am _open_ to the _possibility_ that 911 was either allowed to 
happen or even (though i doubt it very much) contrived by the US powers that 
be. but i would never state is as cold hard fact in such a brazen and 
tactless way as he did.

>i think jaz just "staged" is comment. it was a stilted attempt to get some 
>fire into the interview. and it flopped. loose cannon is autobiographical ?

so? that doesn't stop it being offensive.

>as for the implications, however phrased. i do not find it offensive to 
>suggest a possible link between 911 and US intelligence's possible 
>complicity.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i don't find it offesive to _suggest_ either! didn't you read 
my last post?! it's the way he said it that i object to. it's his smug 
self-righteous arrogant pompous foolish reckless tactless insensitive 
bullying egotistical sneering bigoted wanky attitude that i hate.

>whether some US intelligence was involved through covert complicity, or 
>that 911 was merely a massive intelligence failure and bin laden's zealots 
>getting lucky with the collapse?!! the holes are there and should be 
>investigated.

yeah, they should. i don't call saying "911 was staged" investigating the 
holes.

>many people who actually lost relatives on 911 ( a bunch of which i met 
>feb.15th/03, at the war opposition rally in mid town manhattan) are very 
>very angry at the blatant falsehoods this administration has promoted and 
>exploited regarding this tragedy, compounded by the bush administration's 
>successful attempts to block the investigation of the intelligence failures 
>leading up to 911:  http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/907379.asp?cp1=1

that's a fair point. bush's attempt to link 911 to irag was utterly 
disgraceful. but i don't see how that justifies jaz's crass comment.

>pr 001 - to ask for elaboration into the historical covert atrocities as a 
>dictate to gathering how condescending

tssk. fuck off. you've been so tetchy lately, todd. is everything ok? 
"paranoid! coming in from the void!" you said "history tells us the 
likelihood of 911 being staged is high" (or something like that, i don't 
have the original message). i genuinely didn't understand this claim so i 
asked for elaboration (which i notice you have failed to provide).

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus