9/11 Pentagon Conspiracy

[Thomas]

Pentagon conspiracy (http://www.boreme.com/bm/SEP04/a/f-pentagon/fr.htm)

just wondering what everyone thinks of this.

The flash is pretty convincing but it gives one side of the story.

Where did the hijacked planes and their passengers go then? Did they all just dissapear?

After the size of the explosions I doubt that there would be much plane left and what is left would be ruined, indestinguishable or melted into the other debris. An impact at that speed would create immense heat and the plane would most likely be indestinguishable from the ruins of the Pentagon after such an explosion.

Good film but it doesnt swing it for me.

[NovelGentry]

There's a few things that are convincing and a few that aren't. Your argument seems sorta invalid because there are many other plane crashes that do leave debris, at that speed, and even higher. There are some military jets that crash and have more debris than that plane, and you're talking about much lighter planes that are crashing at much more devastating speeds with possible other explosives on them aside from the fuel.

I think the argument about the hijacked plane is that one wasn't hijacked at all and that flight 77 was just sort of made up by the government. Personally, I do believe it was a plane, but I don't believe it was a 757, and I firmly believe it was carrying an explosive. Even looking at those tapes from the pentagon's camera... it doesn't look nearly as big as a 757 would. And even if you'd been a pilot for 20 years, you've never flown a 757 at 1 story high, approx 2-5 feet off the ground (since the top of the hole wasn't much further above one story and there is a certain height to the plane itself. It would take incredible skill and experience and probably more practice than you can imagine to do such a thing, and without hitting the ground first? come on!

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but that alone is freakin rediculous. The fact that there's no wings is fair enough an argument, wings probably would "sheer" off but they'd probably also do so because they were smashed to bits by steel reinforced walls and probably melted a decent amount in the explosion. There is noticeable wing damage around the walls, but not enough to imply they went through the walls thus they would of either been completely destroyed or been lying outside the outer wall.

Most convincing line to me "You could smell the cordite, I knew a bomb had gone off" -- I'm sorry, but anyone who knows what cordite is and knows what it smells like I trust to tell me when a bomb has gone off.

Like I said, I don't think it was a missile alone, or not a plane... I do believe it was a hijacked plane, but in order for the government to use the situation without making the people think that they don't know how to do their job, they can't let people think that someone actually got a bomb within the proximity of the pentagon. Some people are willing ot understand if a plane is hijacked and suddenly hits it... but they don't understand how someone exactly got a bomb onto a plane and then flew the plane with the bomb into the building -- that to them is a lot scarier and means that the government isn't paying enough attention. Personally I find it insane that a plane could even hit the pentagon... if it was my pentagon I'd have plenty of "lookouts" so to speak and plenty of jets keeping a close eye on it.

The fact is, the US never expected aerial attack of any sorts -- they'd only expect military aerial attack with declarations of war, and thus they had no reason to think that there could be an aerial threat, but they should have. So no matter what it was, long before Bush made a mockery out of it, I had lost all faith in my governments control on the situation.

[redstar2000]

The "Tinfoil Hat" Brigade (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1095784638&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[NovelGentry]

Tinfoil hats are for people who think the government is reading their mind. I on the other hand don't make any suggestion that the government had any part in the actual production of it, just in the breakdown of it.

While agree with some parts of your "paper" -- I disagree with a few points.


The obvious difficulty with "end of the world" scenarios is that they generate complete passivity.

This seems to differ little from when everything is passed off as something created by a tinfoil hat bregade. If we no longer question such things we become oblivious to when they actually happen, and I would say that becomes just as dangerous. I think the proper position is to objectively look at things which you have done on this particular issue, but not before you made a broad and sweeping statement about any other similar issues.


But I see no reason to "take seriously" any of the fashionable "end of the world" scenarios because, if true, then there is nothing to be done.

Agreed, but I don't think any member of the tinfoil hat bregade who assumes that 9/11 was created completely by our government believes it's an end of the world scneario.


Look at what the Italian neo-fascists did...set off one bomb in a railway station, killing less than 200. Do you think Bush & Co. would not have preferred a "cheap" alternative to 9/11?

Once again, I'm not saying they did this, but do you really think the cost of 9/11 is anything compared from what they'll make personally from Iraq? And would a bomb that killed less than 200 people allowed them to so easily attack Iraq. Aside from government contracts to rebuild Iraq the oil in the future is going to be worth much more to government officials with their hands in such pockets than they ever would of had to pay out to fabricate 9/11. The greatest loss of money from 9/11 is to the American people, who fund the war so that they can profit from it. They fund the war because their "representatives" gave Bush the authority to make that war -- Corporate interests sure lost money, but it is the people who have lost the most. Furthermore, the entire air travel industry saw boosts from government funding to help "get them back on track."


And I expect the losses far exceeded "a few billion".

I agree, but who paid the losses in the end. As I said, there's been government funding back to the air travel industry, I'm certain there will be funding towards whatever construction job is chosen to replace the twin towers, and I'm sure there was funding that got whatever businesses that lost productivity because of this "back on track"... and government funding is the poeple's funding because it's their taxes.[

[redstar2000]

This seems to differ little from when everything is passed off as something created by a tinfoil hat bregade. If we no longer question such things we become oblivious to when they actually happen, and I would say that becomes just as dangerous.

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

That is, we could seriously investigate any particular "end of the world" scenario and conclude...what?

1. It's bollocks...we wasted our time and energy bothering to check it out.

2. It's (gasp!) true...we're all going to die or at "best" be reduced to savagery.

Conclusion one need require no effort on our part, and we can use that time and energy more productively. I just ignore such scenarios because there's nothing useful that can be done about them.

Conclusion two renders all our efforts and any possible future efforts completely pointless...it makes more sense to just drink ourselves into a stupor.

Perhaps it's a matter of taste...I'm sure there would be people running their vacuum cleaners "just one last time" before the power goes off "forever".

But it's not to my taste...I would rather think I was doing something useful "right up to the end"...if there is one.

Much the same is true, I think, about "deep conspiracies" and "secret societies". If such things were really influential in the course of history, then our revolutionary efforts would never be more than insignificant trivia. The "secret masters" would still be running the show...red flags or otherwise.

So I just "rule them out" -- the knowledge of whether or not they are "true" should be of no interest to revolutionaries.

And there's also a practical consideration: if we fail to limit our investigations to the plausible, then where do we "draw the line" and on what grounds?

"Maybe" George Bush is really a "space alien" from Vega XVII. "Maybe" agents of the devil were behind 9/11. "Maybe" the tinfoil hat brigade is "right". (!)

"Maybe" I'm a 34th degree Freemason who secretly rules the internet. :lol:

See...there's just no end of nonsense to "investigate". Therefore, I only admit plausible hypotheses for consideration.

I don't see any other reasonable way to proceed.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

This seems to differ little from when everything is passed off as something created by a tinfoil hat bregade. If we no longer question such things we become oblivious to when they actually happen, and I would say that becomes just as dangerous.

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

That is, we could seriously investigate any particular "end of the world" scenario and conclude...what?

1. It's bollocks...we wasted our time and energy bothering to check it out.

2. It's (gasp!) true...we're all going to die or at "best" be reduced to savagery.

Conclusion one need require no effort on our part, and we can use that time and energy more productively. I just ignore such scenarios because there's nothing useful that can be done about them.

Conclusion two renders all our efforts and any possible future efforts completely pointless...it makes more sense to just drink ourselves into a stupor.

Perhaps it's a matter of taste...I'm sure there would be people running their vacuum cleaners "just one last time" before the power goes off "forever".

But it's not to my taste...I would rather think I was doing something useful "right up to the end"...if there is one.

Much the same is true, I think, about "deep conspiracies" and "secret societies". If such things were really influential in the course of history, then our revolutionary efforts would never be more than insignificant trivia. The "secret masters" would still be running the show...red flags or otherwise.

So I just "rule them out" -- the knowledge of whether or not they are "true" should be of no interest to revolutionaries.

And there's also a practical consideration: if we fail to limit our investigations to the plausible, then where do we "draw the line" and on what grounds?

"Maybe" George Bush is really a "space alien" from Vega XVII. "Maybe" agents of the devil were behind 9/11. "Maybe" the tinfoil hat brigade is "right". (!)

"Maybe" I'm a 34th degree Freemason who secretly rules the internet. :lol:

See...there's just no end of nonsense to "investigate". Therefore, I only admit plausible hypotheses for consideration.

I don't see any other reasonable way to proceed.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

This seems to differ little from when everything is passed off as something created by a tinfoil hat bregade. If we no longer question such things we become oblivious to when they actually happen, and I would say that becomes just as dangerous.

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

That is, we could seriously investigate any particular "end of the world" scenario and conclude...what?

1. It's bollocks...we wasted our time and energy bothering to check it out.

2. It's (gasp!) true...we're all going to die or at "best" be reduced to savagery.

Conclusion one need require no effort on our part, and we can use that time and energy more productively. I just ignore such scenarios because there's nothing useful that can be done about them.

Conclusion two renders all our efforts and any possible future efforts completely pointless...it makes more sense to just drink ourselves into a stupor.

Perhaps it's a matter of taste...I'm sure there would be people running their vacuum cleaners "just one last time" before the power goes off "forever".

But it's not to my taste...I would rather think I was doing something useful "right up to the end"...if there is one.

Much the same is true, I think, about "deep conspiracies" and "secret societies". If such things were really influential in the course of history, then our revolutionary efforts would never be more than insignificant trivia. The "secret masters" would still be running the show...red flags or otherwise.

So I just "rule them out" -- the knowledge of whether or not they are "true" should be of no interest to revolutionaries.

And there's also a practical consideration: if we fail to limit our investigations to the plausible, then where do we "draw the line" and on what grounds?

"Maybe" George Bush is really a "space alien" from Vega XVII. "Maybe" agents of the devil were behind 9/11. "Maybe" the tinfoil hat brigade is "right". (!)

"Maybe" I'm a 34th degree Freemason who secretly rules the internet. :lol:

See...there's just no end of nonsense to "investigate". Therefore, I only admit plausible hypotheses for consideration.

I don't see any other reasonable way to proceed.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[peaccenicked]

Here are some of the links I have collected.
http://www.geocities.com/paulanderson9/binladen.html
I provide short descriptions of each website.
There are some indications of foul play. I think some of the evidence is weak, some of it is strong. I think on the whole there is a case for great suspicion.
Here is a more recent article.
http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm

[peaccenicked]

Here are some of the links I have collected.
http://www.geocities.com/paulanderson9/binladen.html
I provide short descriptions of each website.
There are some indications of foul play. I think some of the evidence is weak, some of it is strong. I think on the whole there is a case for great suspicion.
Here is a more recent article.
http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm

[peaccenicked]

Here are some of the links I have collected.
http://www.geocities.com/paulanderson9/binladen.html
I provide short descriptions of each website.
There are some indications of foul play. I think some of the evidence is weak, some of it is strong. I think on the whole there is a case for great suspicion.
Here is a more recent article.
http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm

[NovelGentry]

That is, we could seriously investigate any particular "end of the world" scenario and conclude...what?

The 9/11 conspiracy is not an end of the world scenario, nor is a lot of other government conspiracy idea. This is what I was referring to, not actual end of the world conspiracies. But you equate the end of the world conspiracies made by the tinfoil hat bregades as the same as the government corruption conspiracies made by them, which creates a situation of passiveness towards a very real threat.


See...there's just no end of nonsense to "investigate". Therefore, I only admit plausible hypotheses for consideration.

Fair enough, but then we have to define the terms of what's actually plausible, which is a whole lot harder. If you ask me it is plausible that the US government has involvment or complete construction of the 9/11 attacks, even though I don't think they did, it is still plausible. So should we only be accepting what's more plausible? If that is the case we're left in a position where the government simply has to come up with a more plausible theory than that they somehow were involved... not too difficult.

[NovelGentry]

That is, we could seriously investigate any particular "end of the world" scenario and conclude...what?

The 9/11 conspiracy is not an end of the world scenario, nor is a lot of other government conspiracy idea. This is what I was referring to, not actual end of the world conspiracies. But you equate the end of the world conspiracies made by the tinfoil hat bregades as the same as the government corruption conspiracies made by them, which creates a situation of passiveness towards a very real threat.


See...there's just no end of nonsense to "investigate". Therefore, I only admit plausible hypotheses for consideration.

Fair enough, but then we have to define the terms of what's actually plausible, which is a whole lot harder. If you ask me it is plausible that the US government has involvment or complete construction of the 9/11 attacks, even though I don't think they did, it is still plausible. So should we only be accepting what's more plausible? If that is the case we're left in a position where the government simply has to come up with a more plausible theory than that they somehow were involved... not too difficult.

[NovelGentry]

That is, we could seriously investigate any particular "end of the world" scenario and conclude...what?

The 9/11 conspiracy is not an end of the world scenario, nor is a lot of other government conspiracy idea. This is what I was referring to, not actual end of the world conspiracies. But you equate the end of the world conspiracies made by the tinfoil hat bregades as the same as the government corruption conspiracies made by them, which creates a situation of passiveness towards a very real threat.


See...there's just no end of nonsense to "investigate". Therefore, I only admit plausible hypotheses for consideration.

Fair enough, but then we have to define the terms of what's actually plausible, which is a whole lot harder. If you ask me it is plausible that the US government has involvment or complete construction of the 9/11 attacks, even though I don't think they did, it is still plausible. So should we only be accepting what's more plausible? If that is the case we're left in a position where the government simply has to come up with a more plausible theory than that they somehow were involved... not too difficult.

[redstar2000]

Fair enough, but then we have to define the terms of what's actually plausible, which is a whole lot harder.

It's a "judgement call" that each of us has to make.

For example, suppose I were to read an article in which the author put together quite a bit of credible evidence from public sources in support of the hypothesis that the U.S. is planning an imminent invasion of Iran.

That strikes me as entirely plausible...whereas others would not even consider it until the bombs started falling.

It "fits" with the recent behavior of U.S. imperialism as well as with its professed ideology.

Now suppose someone else suggests -- on the basis of on-going suspicion -- that rogue elements in the CIA conspired to facilitate the efforts of Al-Qaeda to commit a major terrorist action within the U.S.

Well, it's possible...the CIA has done some pretty "wild" things "off the books"...though the effects were marginal. I personally wouldn't waste a lot of time thinking about this one.

And from there we enter the realm of "deep conspiracies" and the wildly implausible. And here is where, at least in my opinion, rational effort is wasted.

People have different levels of skepticism and accordingly different criteria of plausibility. As I noted in the exchange at San Francisco IndyMedia, some folks find "mundane" explanations "unsatisfying" and seem to have a decided taste for the "spectacular", the "exotic", and the truly weird. A century ago, they might well have found their niche in astral writing, table-tapping, ghost-photography, etc. In our more secular age, it is the "deep conspiracy" that appeals to (at least some of) them.

Perhaps it stems from an insight that is perfectly valid -- authority does lie to people...quite often and in many ways. But when that insight in disconnected from much in the way of real knowledge about how the world actually works...it just "runs hog wild".

And anything becomes "plausible".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

Fair enough, but then we have to define the terms of what's actually plausible, which is a whole lot harder.

It's a "judgement call" that each of us has to make.

For example, suppose I were to read an article in which the author put together quite a bit of credible evidence from public sources in support of the hypothesis that the U.S. is planning an imminent invasion of Iran.

That strikes me as entirely plausible...whereas others would not even consider it until the bombs started falling.

It "fits" with the recent behavior of U.S. imperialism as well as with its professed ideology.

Now suppose someone else suggests -- on the basis of on-going suspicion -- that rogue elements in the CIA conspired to facilitate the efforts of Al-Qaeda to commit a major terrorist action within the U.S.

Well, it's possible...the CIA has done some pretty "wild" things "off the books"...though the effects were marginal. I personally wouldn't waste a lot of time thinking about this one.

And from there we enter the realm of "deep conspiracies" and the wildly implausible. And here is where, at least in my opinion, rational effort is wasted.

People have different levels of skepticism and accordingly different criteria of plausibility. As I noted in the exchange at San Francisco IndyMedia, some folks find "mundane" explanations "unsatisfying" and seem to have a decided taste for the "spectacular", the "exotic", and the truly weird. A century ago, they might well have found their niche in astral writing, table-tapping, ghost-photography, etc. In our more secular age, it is the "deep conspiracy" that appeals to (at least some of) them.

Perhaps it stems from an insight that is perfectly valid -- authority does lie to people...quite often and in many ways. But when that insight in disconnected from much in the way of real knowledge about how the world actually works...it just "runs hog wild".

And anything becomes "plausible".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

Fair enough, but then we have to define the terms of what's actually plausible, which is a whole lot harder.

It's a "judgement call" that each of us has to make.

For example, suppose I were to read an article in which the author put together quite a bit of credible evidence from public sources in support of the hypothesis that the U.S. is planning an imminent invasion of Iran.

That strikes me as entirely plausible...whereas others would not even consider it until the bombs started falling.

It "fits" with the recent behavior of U.S. imperialism as well as with its professed ideology.

Now suppose someone else suggests -- on the basis of on-going suspicion -- that rogue elements in the CIA conspired to facilitate the efforts of Al-Qaeda to commit a major terrorist action within the U.S.

Well, it's possible...the CIA has done some pretty "wild" things "off the books"...though the effects were marginal. I personally wouldn't waste a lot of time thinking about this one.

And from there we enter the realm of "deep conspiracies" and the wildly implausible. And here is where, at least in my opinion, rational effort is wasted.

People have different levels of skepticism and accordingly different criteria of plausibility. As I noted in the exchange at San Francisco IndyMedia, some folks find "mundane" explanations "unsatisfying" and seem to have a decided taste for the "spectacular", the "exotic", and the truly weird. A century ago, they might well have found their niche in astral writing, table-tapping, ghost-photography, etc. In our more secular age, it is the "deep conspiracy" that appeals to (at least some of) them.

Perhaps it stems from an insight that is perfectly valid -- authority does lie to people...quite often and in many ways. But when that insight in disconnected from much in the way of real knowledge about how the world actually works...it just "runs hog wild".

And anything becomes "plausible".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[peaccenicked]

I hate arguing with you RedStar2000. It is not because I dont like you. Quite the opposite. I feel impaired by my own sense of solidarity with your intense consideration of the political problems of this world. I sometimes think in a European way less experienced in the more courageous stand of honest simple socialism in the USA. I am surrounded by people who hate imperialism both British and American and with a wide sense of international capitalism. I am only trying to say that nuances of language is part of my daily conflict with the left or would be left. My non web comrades, my family, my life are a sore conflict of the meaning of words.
It is just that the words you use dont seem to relate in meaning to the words I use.

"different criteria of plausibility".
=How much they are hoodwinked by the lies of the war party.
It is like you are asking for evidence that Hitler did not burn down the Reichstag.
Evidence that the Stalin trial against Kirov was not false.

"Well, it's possible...the CIA has done some pretty "wild" things "off the books"...though the effects were marginal. I personally wouldn't waste a lot of time thinking about this one."

The CIA who killed Che Guevara over toppled the "bourgeois" socialist Allende.
At least under exposed the election rigging in Florida and everyplace they can get a hold of.


I sometimes wonder if we are living in the same linguistic World. Or is it that we do not share the same political world. Is it possible for two socialists?

It is clear to a scientist that there has to be evidence that goes beyond plausibility.
This is clearly about the weight of evidence. In a court case it is beyond reasonable doubt.


What I suggest in the most polite and and considerate terms I can, is that , does the evidence we have at our hands enough for reasonable doubt? Or Is it plausible to allow the US State get away with the most ugly deceitful crime known to our generation and that is considering its consequences.


Or is it Redstar2000 the Bush apologist. Stalin apologist. Hitler apologist. What is the difference?

Where I come from these words mean something.

The study of capitalism by Marx is not about sinister gangsterism.
The study of imperialism by semi rational people involved with the establishment including Gore Vidal author, Michael Meacher UK MP
another ex ministeral MP from Germany(if you care. I cant remember his name) tends to show that it is.




But I shall not apologise.

But maybe it is too "deep" a study for you to comment apon.

[peaccenicked]

I hate arguing with you RedStar2000. It is not because I dont like you. Quite the opposite. I feel impaired by my own sense of solidarity with your intense consideration of the political problems of this world. I sometimes think in a European way less experienced in the more courageous stand of honest simple socialism in the USA. I am surrounded by people who hate imperialism both British and American and with a wide sense of international capitalism. I am only trying to say that nuances of language is part of my daily conflict with the left or would be left. My non web comrades, my family, my life are a sore conflict of the meaning of words.
It is just that the words you use dont seem to relate in meaning to the words I use.

"different criteria of plausibility".
=How much they are hoodwinked by the lies of the war party.
It is like you are asking for evidence that Hitler did not burn down the Reichstag.
Evidence that the Stalin trial against Kirov was not false.

"Well, it's possible...the CIA has done some pretty "wild" things "off the books"...though the effects were marginal. I personally wouldn't waste a lot of time thinking about this one."

The CIA who killed Che Guevara over toppled the "bourgeois" socialist Allende.
At least under exposed the election rigging in Florida and everyplace they can get a hold of.


I sometimes wonder if we are living in the same linguistic World. Or is it that we do not share the same political world. Is it possible for two socialists?

It is clear to a scientist that there has to be evidence that goes beyond plausibility.
This is clearly about the weight of evidence. In a court case it is beyond reasonable doubt.


What I suggest in the most polite and and considerate terms I can, is that , does the evidence we have at our hands enough for reasonable doubt? Or Is it plausible to allow the US State get away with the most ugly deceitful crime known to our generation and that is considering its consequences.


Or is it Redstar2000 the Bush apologist. Stalin apologist. Hitler apologist. What is the difference?

Where I come from these words mean something.

The study of capitalism by Marx is not about sinister gangsterism.
The study of imperialism by semi rational people involved with the establishment including Gore Vidal author, Michael Meacher UK MP
another ex ministeral MP from Germany(if you care. I cant remember his name) tends to show that it is.




But I shall not apologise.

But maybe it is too "deep" a study for you to comment apon.

[peaccenicked]

I hate arguing with you RedStar2000. It is not because I dont like you. Quite the opposite. I feel impaired by my own sense of solidarity with your intense consideration of the political problems of this world. I sometimes think in a European way less experienced in the more courageous stand of honest simple socialism in the USA. I am surrounded by people who hate imperialism both British and American and with a wide sense of international capitalism. I am only trying to say that nuances of language is part of my daily conflict with the left or would be left. My non web comrades, my family, my life are a sore conflict of the meaning of words.
It is just that the words you use dont seem to relate in meaning to the words I use.

"different criteria of plausibility".
=How much they are hoodwinked by the lies of the war party.
It is like you are asking for evidence that Hitler did not burn down the Reichstag.
Evidence that the Stalin trial against Kirov was not false.

"Well, it's possible...the CIA has done some pretty "wild" things "off the books"...though the effects were marginal. I personally wouldn't waste a lot of time thinking about this one."

The CIA who killed Che Guevara over toppled the "bourgeois" socialist Allende.
At least under exposed the election rigging in Florida and everyplace they can get a hold of.


I sometimes wonder if we are living in the same linguistic World. Or is it that we do not share the same political world. Is it possible for two socialists?

It is clear to a scientist that there has to be evidence that goes beyond plausibility.
This is clearly about the weight of evidence. In a court case it is beyond reasonable doubt.


What I suggest in the most polite and and considerate terms I can, is that , does the evidence we have at our hands enough for reasonable doubt? Or Is it plausible to allow the US State get away with the most ugly deceitful crime known to our generation and that is considering its consequences.


Or is it Redstar2000 the Bush apologist. Stalin apologist. Hitler apologist. What is the difference?

Where I come from these words mean something.

The study of capitalism by Marx is not about sinister gangsterism.
The study of imperialism by semi rational people involved with the establishment including Gore Vidal author, Michael Meacher UK MP
another ex ministeral MP from Germany(if you care. I cant remember his name) tends to show that it is.




But I shall not apologise.

But maybe it is too "deep" a study for you to comment apon.