What a rag the Washington Post has become.

Even if you agree with the anonymous author, it's still a blistering attack and a shoddy piece of journalism. Apparently they interviewed him about immigration laws and his comments about 9/11 were not part of that interview.

Although not Fujita-related, the Washington Times did a much fairer article on 9/11 questions a couple of weeks earlier.

The Washington Times: a trash newspaper owned and operated by Sun Myung Moon's loony Unification Church. They'll print anything to sell papers. They've been known to print outright false stories in the past (shamelessly so in the lead up to the war on terror and iraq war), so they aren't exactly the best source to hold up as an example of fine journalism.

The only thing the Washington Post got wrong in its editorial was the exact translation of Fujita's DPJ position and the actual importance it carries. He's made numerous public statements in support of the 9/11 truth movement, so it's fair game to criticize him for his views.

Sorry, but if you're talking to the media, it's part of the interview. And regardless of your stance on who or what was behind 9/11, I think you'd agree that bringing up such contentious issues as a matter of personal opinion when talking to a major news outlet is the height of poor diplomacy. It does reflect very poorly on both Fujita and the DPJ.

I may not agree entirely with Fujita's conspiracy, but to flag this as lame is not good. The conspiracy theories out there now are more well founded than the so-called American "dovetail" response where they believe that they were the victims of an evil plot carried out by extremist, single handedly. Most Americans believe that terrorist plotters were help by Americans who knew and understood the inner workings of the country.

Most Americans do not believe this. The well-followed 2007 August Zogby poll shows that only 4.6% of respondents believed that elements in the US government planned or assisted the attacks. 26% believe that the US government knew, but let it happen. The overwhelming majority believe the official story.
P.5 for your delectation:
http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf

I think that mcalpine's previous comments make it clear that when he says "most", he is referring to less than 50% of any given group.

I do think, however, that the numbers have probably increased since 2007. The 9/11 truth movement has not stopped fanatically trying to to spread its ideas. Experts on the other side (scientists and engineers with actual relevant expertise) have moved on to doing other work.

I can't believe you would throw a statistic at me from Zogby, you mean the worst pollster in the world, right...? They've two three day averages is hardly even considered fact based! Dig a little deeper. Well-informed....(clearing my throat).

Fair enough. Care to tell me which poll I should be looking at which backs up your point? I'll accept "most" to be anything above, say, 2/3rds if that makes it easier.

And read better next time - I said well-followed, not well-informed. I do chose my words carefully.

The well-followed 2007 August Zogby poll shows that only 4.6% of respondents believed that elements in the US government planned or assisted the attacks. 26% believe that the US government knew, but let it happen.

So if 30% in 2007 believed the government at least knew the attacks were coming, and I assume most others believed it was a massive intelligence failure, isn't it somewhat scandalous that not one person was held accountable for at least negligence?

The Washington Post is calling for Fujita's head, but not for those who directly failed in their duties on 9/11? The U.S has its priorities backwards. A politician who cheats on his wife gets crucified in the media and loses everything, whereas those warned about the attacks and did nothing kept their jobs. Disgraceful!

Nick, I don't disagree - but that was not what McAlpine was asserting.

CJW, then what did I mean? What Nick highlighted was a systemic failure in America's government that many Americans are starting to understand - it took 8 years and billions of tax payer dollars to understand- that many Americans are not buying into the dovetail American response about 911 and the war.

"more well founded..." & "most Americans believe..."

Ok. I'll bite. Who's saying that these theories are well-founded? Which polls support the belief of "most" Americans. It is one thing to make bold comments, it is another to cite and support them. You've only done the first part, which any lazy person with an opinion can do.

Granted "more well founded [sic]" is a fairly loose accolade. Improving crap science doesn't necessarily mean you've elevated it beyond crap science.

@James, not to be a pedant, but "most" used in this way (referring to a percentage) does in fact mean the majority. New Oxford American says it is "the majority of; nearly all of." If mcalpine didn't mean 51% or more then he used the wrong word.

@James, not to be a pedant, but "most" used in this way (referring to a percentage) does in fact mean the majority. New Oxford American says it is "the majority of; nearly all of." If mcalpine didn't mean 51% or more then he used the wrong word.

**whoosh**

Polls and percentages work better with solid averages, not short term polls. You get a large swath of Americans whose opinions change constantly. This is called "uncontrollable variable" when it comes to the numbers game, so when you threw Zogby at me I scratched my head. I believe, without any solid statistics, that a large swath of Americans not only oppose the war(s), but feel that there were Americans in the highest echelons of our government who were involved with the planning and financing of many terror related issues at home and abroad.

911 was coming and many in our government knew it and failed to act on credible intelligence....In America we call this criminal negligence!

In the case of 911 it was the chickens coming home to roost.

"I believe, without any solid statistics, that a large swath of Americans not only oppose the war(s), but feel that there were Americans in the highest echelons of our government who were involved with the planning and financing of many terror related issues at home and abroad."

Belief does not equate to truth or fact. I am sure you must know that.

I take issue that you expressed your "belief" in such a way as to make it sound like fact. It seems dishonest.


James, I assume that your "whoosh" is meant to imply that something went over my head. My guess/hope is that you were being sarcastic in your previous post. Good to know. Just for your information, sarcasm doesn't work well on the internet— unless you can do it well. Sorry to say it, but you came off as clueless to me, not sarcastic.

"I believe, without any solid statistics" - at least you are honest that your misguided beliefs have no basis in reality. Takes a man to do that.

In summary, though, you've exhorted me to "dig deeper" when I quoted the Zogby poll, called them "the worst pollster in the world", you've lectured on "polls and percentages work better with solid averages" - when all along you had absolutely no interest or knowledge of any of the statistics, so long as they failed to agree with your poorly-founded opinions...

You would have a shining career in politics.

Zogby as "worst pollster in the world" is, as far as I know, just the opinion of the guy who runs fivethirtyeight.com, which was a comment he made as he was documenting the build up to the 2008 presidential elections, and even then it was specific to an online poll and not as a universal criticism of Zogby. I specifically remember the blog post because I was following fivethirtyeight.com pretty closely at the time.


Zogby has even come up with results in a poll that fit in well with McAlpine's world view:

http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/02/24/zogby-poll-affirms-toyota-used-its-peacetime-wisely/

There is no widespread stance that Zogby results are suspect.

CJW["I believe, without any solid statistics" - at least you are honest that your misguided beliefs have no basis in reality. Takes a man to do that.

In summary, though, you've exhorted me to "dig deeper" when I quoted the Zogby poll, called them "the worst pollster in the world", you've lectured on "polls and percentages work better with solid averages" - when all along you had absolutely no interest or knowledge of any of the statistics, so long as they failed to agree with your poorly-founded opinions...

You would have a shining career in politics. ] END

C'mon now CJW...I have never passed my opinions off as fact, neither have you and Mr. Victory Manual. You drug Zogby up and threw a figure at me, I refuted it by highlighting the lameness of the pollster in question. You then turn around and say my opinions are unfounded in reality because I didn't counter your statistics with another pollster. I just don't have enough time in my day, in between onsen and my ripe uyoku jukujo babes,, to dig through your polls. Besides, I don't see anything wrong with making my words sound fact based.

I think you may have self-diagnosed both the problem and the cause with that last line, McAlpine...

@mcalpine. You said, "I have never passed my opinions off as fact... I don't see anything wrong with making my words sound fact based."

This is amazing.

@jonnylink - James said "I think that mcalpine's previous comments make it clear that when he says "most", he is referring to less than 50% of any given group." (emphasis mine)

Hence the "whoosh" - what he said went right over your head.

Yup. We've already gone over that.
I already said my piece, so I won't get dragged back into it.
Thanks for stating the obvious and for randomly bolding something, though.

Here is Fujita's take on what happened:

http://yumikikuchi.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-did-washington-post-attack-mr.html

Edit: And posted 4 days later in the Japan Times here.

And now Fujita has responded with a "Letter to the Editor" in the Washington Post itself!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031204085.html

@mcalpine. You said, "I have never passed my opinions off as fact... I don't see anything wrong with making my words sound fact based."　「end]

Are you trying to imply that I'm contradicting myself? I'm not actually. I think the whole point of any argument is to persuade others to see your point of view through rhetoric that sounds fact based - the media does it everyday. U and CJW attempt, and yet nobody on this thread has proven absolutely anything.

Oh, you mean "truthiness"?

There is a big difference between persuading and misleading. If you can't see that line then you don't have a chance of holding a conversation with anyone who's slightly informed.

If your standard is "absolute" proof, your future is looking fairly bleak. At any rate, the truth is that to have a real conversation you can't just make up "facts" and demand others prove your baseless theories wrong. If you want to have a conversation you have to come to the table with at least a modicum of honesty and sincerety.

That's just it. No one else has proven to have even the slightest bit of facts. Persuading and misleading are not mutually exclusive of each other; in fact they compliment each other.. No one has proven me wrong, not even with misleading pollsters like Zogby. I merely applied an empirical observational approach to a topic that's been beaten to death over and over again by political pundits and neoconservatives who will never see eye-to-eye about what caused 911.

mcalpine, I am sorry, but you are clearly hopeless.

If you bring one fact to the table you'd have something, but you are coming here expecting others to prove your "observations" wrong. It is lazy and arrogant.

Let's turn the tables.

My observation is that only uniformed clods go about saying that most American's think 9/11 has a conspiracy story behind it. Prove me wrong.

You're dragging this out and it's going nowhere. Closing the thread.